Public stakeholder consultation – Interim evaluation of
the Joint Undertakings operating under Horizon 2020

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

1

This consultation aims to collect the views of the public about the implementation of the Joint
Undertakings (JUs) under Horizon 2020 for the period 2014 to 2016. The outcome of this public
consultation will provide input to the currently ongoing interim evaluation of the JUs, covering the
same period. The results of the interim evaluation will be used as a basis to improve the performance
of the JUs and will be communicated to the European Parliament and the Council, national
authorities, the research community and other stakeholders.
This questionnaire consists of six parts and it will take around 20 minutes to respond.
A short introduction to Joint Technology Initiatives and Joint Undertakings
The Joint Undertakings (JUs) are formalised public-private partnerships involving companies at the
European level. The JUs were first set up in 2007 under the Seventh Framework Programme
(referred to as 'FP7') in five strategic areas: aeronautics and air transport, health, fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies, embedded computing systems and nanoelectronics. The JUs bring together
industry, the research community, in some cases Member States, regulators and the EU to define
and implement common research agendas and invest in large-scale multinational research activities.
They are practical examples of the European Union's efforts towards strengthening its
competitiveness through scientific excellence, industry led research, openness and innovation.
The European Commission, as a co-founding member, was responsible for setting up the JUs. Once
they had built up their legal and financial framework and demonstrated their capacity to manage their
own budgets, the JUs were granted autonomy. The control over JUs is shared and the Commission
has its own members in the Governing Board of each JU.
Based on the experience acquired under FP7, a second generation of public and private
partnerships was set up[1] by the European Commission under Horizon 2020, aiming to collectively
pool more than €22 billion[2] of research and innovation investments. This includes seven JUs,
namely: Bio-based Industries (BBI), Clean Sky 2 (CS 2), Electronic Components and Systems for
European Leadership (ECSEL), Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 (FCH 2), Innovative Medicines Initiative 2
(IMI 2), Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) and Shift2Rail, that organise their own
research and innovation agenda[3] and award funding for projects on the basis of competitive calls.

[1] With the exception of SESAR JU for which the existing JU Regulation was extended.
[2] This amount represents the total investments under Art. 185 and Art. 187 initiatives under Horizon
2020.
[3] Exception is the SESAR JU the agenda of which is set by the Member States, various Air Traffic
Management (ATM) stakeholders and the members of the PPP in the framework of the European
ATM Master Plan.

A. Information about you

2

* A.1. In which capacity are you responding to this consultation?
As an individual in my personal capacity
In my professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation

A.1.1. Please enter your personal details

*First name:

*Last name:

*Email address:

A.1.1. Please enter your professional details

*First name:

*Last name:

*Professional email address:

*Name of the organisation:
The Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs

*Postal address of the organisation:
P.O. Box 20401, 2500 EK Den Haag, The Netherlands

3

A.1.2. Is your organisation included in the Transparency Register?
YES
NO

If your organisation is not registered we invite you to register here, although it is not compulsory to be
registered in order to participate in this consultation. Why a transparency register?

* A.2. My contribution,
Note that whatever option chosen, your answers may be subject to a request for public access to documents under Regulation
(EC)No 1049/2001

can be published with my personal information (I consent to the publication of all
information in my contribution in whole or in part including my name or my organisation's
name, and I declare that nothing within my response is unlawful or would infringe the rights of
any third party in a manner that would prevent publication)
can be published provided that I remain anonymous (I consent to the publication of any
information in my contribution in whole or in part (which may include quotes or opinions I
express) provided that it is done anonymously. I declare that nothing within my response if
unlawful or would infringe the rights of any third party in a manner that would prevent the
publication)

* A.3. Please enter your current country of residence
Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Albania

Bosnia and
Herzegovina

Faroe
Islands

Former Yogoslav Republic
of Macedonia

Georgia

Iceland

Israel

Moldova

Monteneg
ro

Norway

Serbia

Switzerland

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

Other

Please specify

4

* A.3. Please enter the country where your organisation is currently based
Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Albania

Bosnia and
Herzegovina

Faroe
Islands

Former Yogoslav Republic
of Macedonia

Georgia

Iceland

Israel

Moldova

Monteneg
ro

Norway

Serbia

Switzerland

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

Other

Please specify

A.4. For which Joint Undertaking would you like to provide your views:
(you may provide your views for more than one JU)

between 1 and 7 answered rows
Choice
BBI
CS2
ECSEL
FCH2
IMI2
SESAR
Shift2Rail

The 'Bio-based Industries' Joint Undertaking (BBI JU)

5

Introduction to BBI JU
The Commission Communication "Innovating for sustainable growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe"

(COM(2012)60 of 13/2/2012) and the Europe 2020 Strategy (COM(2010)2020 of 3/3/2010) calls for
bioeconomy as a key element for smart and green growth in Europe. Both propose that the
advancements in bioeconomy research and innovation uptake will allow Europe to improve the
management of its renewable biological resources and to open new and diversified markets in food
and bio-based products.
The Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking is a new €3.7 billion Public-Private Partnership between
the EU and the Bio-based Industries Consortium. It funds research and innovation projects under
Horizon 2020 and it is driven by the Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda (SIRA) developed by
the industry.
One of the main objectives of the Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking (BBI JU) is to contribute to
the objectives of the BBI Initiative for a more resource efficient and sustainable low-carbon economy
and to increasing economic growth and employment, in particularly in rural areas, by developing
sustainable and competitive bio-based industries in Europe based on advanced biorefineries that
source their biomass sustainably, and in particular to:
(i) demonstrate technologies that enable new chemical building blocks, new materials, and new
consumer products from European biomass which replace the need for fossil- based inputs
(ii) develop business models that integrate economic actors along the whole value chain from supply
of biomass to biorefinery plants to consumers of bio-based materials, chemicals and fuels, including
by means of creating new cross-sector interconnections and supporting cross-industry clusters and
(iii) set up flagship biorefinery plants that deploy the technologies and business models for bio-based
materials, chemicals and fuels and demonstrate cost and performance improvements to levels that
are competitive with fossil-based alternatives.
According to the BBI JU legal framework (Council Regulation (EU) No 560/2014 of 6 May 2014

establishing the Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking), the contributions of the Union on one hand
and the members other than the Union (private partner – Biobased Industries Consortium, BIC), on
the other hand, are the following:
The contribution of the Union to the administrative and operational costs of the BBI JU should
be up to € 975 million
The contribution of BIC or of its constituent entities to the administrative and operational costs
of the BBI Initiative should be at least € 2,730 million.

6

* A.5. What type of organisation do you represent?
Please select one of the following:

Not applicable (I respond as an individual in my personal capacity)
Private for profit organisation, excluding education (PRC)
Member State administration
Regional/local administration
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Research organisation
Academia
Other

Please specify
Ministry of Economic Affairs

* A.5.1. In the sector of:
Agriculture
Agro-food sector
Forestry
Forest-based sector
Fisheries and aquaculture
Industrial Biotechnology
Chemicals
Materials, e.g. polymers, plastics
Other (non-pharmaceutical) biotechnologies
Energy and bio-fuels
Bio-waste processing
Technology providers
Other
Please specify

7

A.6. Are you a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
(SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. The
category of SMEs is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not
exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. Within the SME category, a small
enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance
sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. Within the SME category, a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs
fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million).

YES
NO

* A.7. Are you familiar with the objectives and activities of the Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking
(BBI JU)?
Not at all familiar
Slightly familiar
Moderately familiar
Very familiar

* A.8. Have you applied for funding from the BBI JU?
YES
NO

* A.9. Are you directly involved with the BBI JU?
YES
NO
A.9.1. You are involved with the BBI JU, as:
YES
BIC member
Beneficiary of BBI JU
Evaluator
Advisory board member
Other

Please specify

The Dutch government is member of the state representatives group.
8

B. European added value
B.1. In your view, could the industry along with other possible actors at national level but without the
involvement of the EU, be able to overcome the barriers which hinder innovation and drive up costs in
the bio-based sector?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.2. Do you agree with the EU cooperating with industry in the context of a public-private partnership so
that the bio-based research brings better results to the society and the market in Europe?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

9

B.3. What is the added value of this public-private partnership?
Please rate element(s) of European added value that you consider relevant.
a: Not important at all b: Not important c: Important d: Very important e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

B.3.1.Better use of
available funding
B.3.2.Integration of
European research
B.3.3.More cross border
collaboration
B.3.4.More cross-sector
/interdisciplinary
collaboration
B.3.5. Quicker adoption of
standards
B.3.6. Allowing leverage of
external pools of knowledge
B.3.7. Better availability of
research results
B.3.8. Encouragement of
companies to share
expertise

B.4. Please provide here any other elements of European added value you consider to be relevant
600 character(s) maximum
(maximum 600 characters)

10

B.5. "Leverage effect" is defined as the ratio between the total contributions provided by the members of
the JU other than the EU and the EU contribution. The Council Regulation establishing BBI JU sets
out the minimum leverage effect throughout its lifespan to 2.8 (i.e. for each euro of public money the
EU contributes, the industrial partners have to contribute at least with €2.8). Please note that, with the
exception of innovation actions, large industry, does not receive any EU funding for participating in BBI
JU projects.
The current minimum leverage effect foreseen of 2.8 is:
Too low
Realistic
Too high
No opinion

B.5.1. In your opinion what would be the satisfactory leverage effect, and why?
600 character(s) maximum

B.6. Do you consider that BBI JU contributes to economic growth and job creation in the EU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.6.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

B.7. Do you consider that the BBI JU contributes to the transition from a fossil- based to a bio-based
economy?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

11

B.8. Do you think that the BBI JU contributes to the climate change mitigation by reducing the CO2
derived from the use of fossil-based products?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

B.9. Do you think that the BBI JU contributes to a more sustainable and efficient use of resources,
including the recycling, reuse and valorization of organic residues?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.10. Do you think that the BBI JU contributes to the strengthening of a circular economy in Europe?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.11. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion, as expressed in your replies to
questions B.7 – B.10
600 character(s) maximum

C. Openness - Transparency

12

C.1. Do you consider that the BBI JU website provides the general public and potential participants with
easy access to information?
Please provide your views on the following aspects:
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

C.1.1. The BBI JU website
provides easy and
effective access to
information to the public
C.1.2. The BBI JU website
provides easily accessible
and sufficient information
about its funded projects
C.1.3. The BBI JU website
provides effective access
to information and
sufficient guidance to
interested organisations
facilitating their
participation in proposals

C.2. Do you consider that the BBI JU encourages the participation of SMEs?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.2.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

13

C.3. Do you consider that the current way of defining topics for the calls of proposals is open and
inclusive?
(The BBI JU topic texts are the result of many negotiations between the EU/EC and BIC (http://biconsortium.eu/), including the
feedback from BBI JU’s Scientific Committee and States Representatives Group. Based on these inputs, the topic texts are written
in such a way that they clearly explain the problem, but leave a fair amount of freedom to proposal writers to come up with a
suitable solution. It is up to each consortium to convince the external experts if and how the proposal’s solution is appropriate to
address the challenges and expected impacts described in the topic text)

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

C.3.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

C.4. Do you consider that BBI JU organises a sound and fair proposal evaluation system based on both
scientific and technological excellence and industrial relevance?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.4.1. Do you consider that the communication of the evaluation results and the feedback provided to
the applicants is effective and meaningful?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.5. Please use this space to write your comments on the evaluation of proposals and the
communication of the evaluation results
600 character(s) maximum

14

D. Relevance – Coherence - Effectiveness

* D.1. The scientific priorities addressed by the BBI JU are set in Strategic Innovation and Research
Agenda (SIRA). Is this document optimal for defining the scope of research and innovation followed by
the BBI JU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
D.2. Do you consider other research and innovation areas not mentioned in SIRA as important to be
addressed?
YES
NO
D.2.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other research and innovation areas not currently
addressed
600 character(s) maximum

15

D.3. In your view how effective has BBI JU been in terms of:
a: Not at all effective b: Somewhat effective c: Very effective

a

d: No opinion

b

c

d

D.3.1. Supporting the
development and
implementation of precompetitive research and of
innovation activities of strategic
importance to the Unions in the
bioeconomy sector
D.3.2. Increasing the number of
new cross-sector
interconnections in BBI projects
D.3.3. Developing new biobased value chains
D.3.4. Developing new biobased building blocks
D.3.5. Developing the bio-based
materials
D.3.6. Developing new biobased consumer products
D.3.7. Increasing the numbers
of flagship biorefinery plants
started based on BBI
demonstration projects
D.3.8. Developing necessary
technologies to fill in the gap in
the bio-based value chains

D.4.Should the JU undertake any other tasks in order to achieve the objectives set out in the
Regulation?
YES
NO

16

D.4.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other tasks that the JU should undertake
600 character(s) maximum

D.5. Do you think that the BBI JU can contribute towards improving the competitiveness and industrial
leadership of Europe in the bio-based industries sector?
In the short term: over the next five years
In the medium term: over the next ten years
In the long term: over the next twenty years
No opinion
D.5.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your answer
600 character(s) maximum

17

D.6. Which would you consider as major benefits of participating in a BBI JU project?
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

*D.6.1. Direct financial
support for innovative
research and development

*D.6.2. Greater visibility
across Europe/Reputation

*D.6.3. Greater
understanding of the biobased products
development process

*D.6.4. Enhanced access
to new markets, business
opportunities and funding
sources

*D.6.5. Inclusion in open
innovation networks, with
direct contact to leading
researchers in universities
and the industry

D.7. Please use this space to write about other benefits not mentioned above
600 character(s) maximum

D.8. Do you consider that BBI JU projects have resulted in specific scientific and/or technological
successes?
YES
NO

18

D.8.1. Please use this space to write which ones you have specifically in mind
600 character(s) maximum

D.9. To what extent are the activities of the BBI JU coherent with other activities of the Horizon 2020
programme?
Not at all coherent
Somewhat coherent
Very coherent
No opinion
D.9.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

D.10. What is the relation of the BBI JU with other Union funding programmes and/or with similar
international, national or intergovernmental programmes?
Complementarity
Synergies
Potential overlaps
No opinion
D.10.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

D.11. Do you have any experience in combining different sources of EU funds and/or with national funds
for research and over the innovation value chain?
YES
NO

19

D.11.1. Please use this space to share your experience in highlighting the advantages or explaining the
encountered problems
600 character(s) maximum

E. Efficiency
E.1. When you applied for funding from the BBI JU, did you think that the application procedure was
straightforward and simple?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.2. When you applied for funding, was the administrative burden for preparing the proposal within
acceptable limits?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.3. Can you make any suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the application procedure?
YES
NO
E.3.1. Please use this space to provide your suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the
application procedure
600 character(s) maximum

20

E.4. You consider that the BBI JU overall budget (public and private) in relation to its objectives and
expected outcomes is:
Too low and therefore it should be increased
Appropriate
Too high and therefore it should be partly used for other types of research and innovation
actions in this area
No opinion

E.5. Please use this space to provide your comments
600 character(s) maximum

F. Overall
F.1. Please provide here any further comments
600 character(s) maximum

The 'Clean Sky' Joint Undertaking (CS2 JU)

21

Introduction to Clean Sky JU
The Clean Sky JTI (Joint Technology Initiative) was created in 2008 as a public-private partnership
between the European Commission and the aeronautics industry. The programme is managed by
the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.
The first research programme, named "Clean Sky", was launched under FP7 with a value of €1.6
billion. The European Commission and industry each contribute 50% of this budget. The FP7 Clean
Sky programme aimed at demonstrating and validating the technology breakthroughs that are
necessary to make major steps towards the environmental goals sets by the Vision 2020 for
European Aeronautics to be reached by 2020, compared to a baseline of a typically new aircraft as
available in 2000:
50% reduction of CO2 emissions through drastic reduction of fuel consumption
80% reduction of NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions
50% reduction of external noise
A green product life cycle: design, manufacturing, maintenance and disposal/ recycling
The second research programme under Horizon 2020, "Clean Sky 2", was established in the view of
Flightpath 2050, Europe' Vision for Aviation and its ambitious goals for 2050:
75% reduction of CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre to support the ATAG target
90% reduction of NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions
65% reduction of external noise
Aircraft movements are emission-free when taxiing
Aircraft are designed and manufactured to be recyclable
The aim of Clean Sky 2 is to integrate, demonstrate and validate the most promising technologies
capable of:The new Clean Sky 2 programme is of total value of approximately €4 billion. The
European Commission contributes €1.755 billion and industry 2.2 billion. The private in-kind
contributions include a minimum of €965 million through additional activities. Increasing aircraft fuel
efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions by 20 to 30% compared to 'state-of-the-art' aircraft entering
into service as from 2014; Reducing aircraft NOx emissions by 20 to 30% compared to 'state-of-theart' aircraft entering into service as from 2014;Reducing aircraft noise emissions levels by up to 5dB
– using the recognised effective perceived noise levels decibel (EPNdB) standard – per operation
compared to 'state-of-the-art' aircraft entering into service as from 2014.

22

* A.5. What type of organisation do you represent?
Please select one of the following:

Not applicable (I respond as an individual in my personal capacity)
Private for profit organisation, excluding education (PRC)
Member State administration
Regional/local administration
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Research organisation
Academia
Other

Please specify
Ministry of Economic Affairs, also on behalf of the ministry for Infrastructure and the Environment and the
Netherlands Enterprise Agency.

* A.5.1. In the sector of:
Large passenger aircraft
Regional aircraft
Small aircraft
Rotorcraft
Airframes
Engines
Systems and equipment
Avionics
Other
Please specify

A.6. Are you a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
(SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. The
category of SMEs is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not
exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. Within the SME category, a small
enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance
sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. Within the SME category, a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs
fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million).

YES
NO

23

* A.7. Are you familiar with the objectives and activities of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CS2 JU)?
Not at all familiar
Slightly familiar
Moderately familiar
Very familiar

* A.8. Have you applied to become a Core Partner of the CS2 JU?
YES
NO

* A.9. Have you applied for funding from the CS2 JU?
YES
NO

* A.10. Are you directly involved with the CS2 JU?
YES
NO
A.10.1. You are involved with the CS2 JU, as:
YES
Leader of CS2 JU
Core Partner in CS2 JU
Beneficiary of CS2 JU
Evaluator
Advisory board member
Other

Please specify
Dutch representatives PC Transport, State Representatives Group Clean Sky 2

B. European added value

24

B.1. In your view, could the industry along with other possible actors at national level but without the
involvement of the EU, maintain its worldwide competitiveness, by maintaining or expanding its
research effort in order to overcome the barriers to innovation and create more environmentallyfriendly aircraft?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

B.2. Do you agree with the EU cooperating with industry in the context of a public-private partnership so
that aeronautics research accelerates the greening of aviation and increases the worldwide
competitiveness of the European Aeronautics Industry?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

25

B.3. What is the European added value of this public-private partnership?
Please rate element(s) of European added value that you consider relevant.
a: Not important at all b: Not important c: Important d: Very important e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

B.3.1. Better use of
available funding
B.3.2. More secure budget
for the aviation research
sector
B.3.3.Integration of
European research
B.3.4. More cross-border
collaboration
B.3.5. More cross-sector/
inter-disciplinary
collaboration
B.3.6. Quicker adoption of
standards
B.3.7. Allowing leverage of
external pools of
knowledge
B.3.8. Better availability of
research results
B.3.9. Encourage
companies to share
expertise
B.3.10. Enable companies
to exploit technologies
faster in products
B.3.11. Enable truly
disruptive innovation in
aeronautics
B.3.12. Enable new
European companies in
aeronautics

26

B.4. Please provide here any other elements of European added value you consider to be relevant
600 character(s) maximum
CS2 JU should improve better availability of research results, sharing of expertise, further exploitation of
technologies, disruptive innovation (also lower TRL-levels) and enabling new companies.

B.5. "Leverage effect" is defined as the ratio between the total contributions provided by the members of
the JU, other than the EU, and the EU contribution. The Council Regulation establishing CS2 JU sets
out the minimum leverage effect throughout its lifespan to 1.25 (i.e. for every €1 of public money the
EU contributes, the industrial partners have to contribute at least €1.25).
The current minimum leverage effect foreseen of 1.25 is:
Too low
Realistic
Too high
No opinion
B.5.1. In your opinion what would be the satisfactory leverage effect, and why?
600 character(s) maximum

B.6. Do you consider that CS2 JU contributes to economic growth and job creation in the EU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.6.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

C. Openness - Transparency

27

C.1. Do you consider that the CS2 JU website provides the general public free cessarily the same.
Perhaps "and/ or" better and potential new members and participants with easy access to relevant
information?
Please provide your views on the following aspects:
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

C.1.1. The CS2 JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
relevant information to the
public
C.1.2. The CS2 JU
website provides easily
accessible and sufficient
information about its
funded projects
C.1.3. The CS2 JU
website provides effective
access to relevant
information and sufficient
guidance to interested
organisations facilitating
their participation in
proposals
C.1.4. The CS2 JU
website provides effective
access to relevant
information and sufficient
guidance to interested
organisations in order to
facilitate them in becoming
Core Partners in CS2 JU
C.1.5. The CS2 JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
knowledge generated by
the projects funded under
this JU

28

C2. Do you consider that the CS2 JU encourages the participation of SMEs?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

C.2.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Because of the strong involvement of core partners, even indirectly in the calls for proposals, it is difficult
for SMEs to get involved; they need to be part of the networks. Also, SMEs in this sector are unevenly
spread across Europe.

C.3. Do you consider that the process of selecting the CS2 Core Partners is sufficiently open, nondiscriminatory and competitive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.4. Do you consider that the current way of defining topics for the calls of proposals is open and
inclusive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.5. Do you consider that the budget split between members' activities (max. 70% of EU funding to the
CS2 JU) and non-members (min. 30% of EU funding to the CS2 JU) is appropriate to ensure a wide
participation of the sector at large?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

29

C.6. Do you consider that CS2 JU organises a sound and fair proposal evaluation system based on both
scientific and technological excellence and industrial relevance?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

C.6.1. Do you consider that the communication of the evaluation results and the feedback provided to
the applicants is effective and meaningful?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.7. Please use this space to write your comments on the evaluation of proposals and the
communication of the evaluation results
600 character(s) maximum

D. Relevance – Coherence - Effectiveness

30

* D.1. The aim of CS2 JU is to integrate, demonstrate and validate the most promising technologies
capable of:

Increasing aircraft fuel efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions by 20 to 30%
Reducing aircraft NOx emissions by 20 to 30%
Reducing aircraft noise emissions levels by up to 5dB – using the recognised effective perceived
noise levels decibel (EPNdB) standard – per operation

All this compared to 'state-of-the-art' aircraft entering into service as from 2014.Are the objectives set
sufficient for defining the Clean Sky research agenda?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

D.2. Do you consider that other important fields of aeronautics research, not mentioned as Clean Sky
goals, should also be addressed?
YES
NO
D.2.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other important fields not currently addressed
600 character(s) maximum
Break through innovations (lower TRL-levels), intermodal aspects: connectivity with other transport
modes (Innovation Airport).

D.3. In your view how effective has CS2 JU been in terms of:
a: Not at all effective b: Somewhat effective c: Very effective

a

d: No opinion

b

c

d

D.3.1. Providing financial
support to research and
innovation indirect actions
mainly in the form of grants

31

D.3.2. Bringing together a range
of Integrated Technology
Demonstrators (ITD) and
Innovative Aircraft
Demonstration Platforms (IADP)
supported by Transvers
Activities (TA), with the
emphasis on innovative
technologies and development
of full-scale demonstrators
D.3.3. Focusing efforts within
ITDs, IADPs and TAs on key
deliverables that can help the
EU meeting its environmental
and competitiveness goals
D.3.4. Enhancing the
technology verification process
in order to identify and remove
obstacles to future market
penetration
D.3.5. Pooling user
requirements to guide
investment in research and
development towards
operational and marketable
solutions
D.3.6. Ensuring the provision of
procurement contracts, where
appropriate, through Calls for
Tender
D.3.7. Mobilising the public and
private-sector funds needed
D.3.8. Liaising with national and
international activities in the
CS2 JU technical domain, in
particular with the SESAR JU
D.3.9. Stimulating the
involvement of SMEs in its
activities, in line with the
objectives of the Seventh
Framework Programme and of
Horizon 2020

32

D.3.10. Developing close
cooperation and ensuring
coordination with related
European (in particular under
the framework programmes),
national and transnational
activities
D.3.11. Engaging in
information, communication,
exploitation and dissemination
activities , including making the
detailed information on results
from calls for proposals
available and accessible in a
common Horizon 2020 edatabase
D.3.12. Liaising with a broad
range of stakeholders including
research organisations and
universities
D.3.13. Enabling synergy and
cross fertilisation between the
ITDs

D.4. Should the JU undertake any other tasks in order to achieve the objectives set out in the
Regulation?
YES
NO
D.4.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other tasks that the JU should undertake
600 character(s) maximum
Dedicated communication through national channels to improve the relevance/resultas of CS2 for
Europe.

D.5. Do you think that the CS2 JU can contribute towards improving the competitiveness and industrial
leadership of Europe in the aeronautics sector?
In the short term: over the next five years
In the medium term: over the next ten years
In the long term: over the next twenty years
No opinion

33

D.5.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your answer
600 character(s) maximum

D.6. Which would you consider as major benefits of participating in a CS2 JU project?
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

*D.6.1. Direct financial
support for innovative
research and development

*D.6.2. Greater visibility
across Europe/Reputation

*D.6.3. Greater
understanding of the product
development process

*D.6.4. Enhanced access to
new markets, business
opportunities and funding
sources

*D.6.5. Inclusion in open
innovation networks, with
direct contact to leading
researchers in universities
and the industry

*D.6.6. Freedom to propose
innovative approaches

D.7. Please use this space to write about other benefits not mentioned above
600 character(s) maximum

34

D.8. Do you consider that CS/CS2 JU projects have resulted in specific scientific and/or technological
successes?
YES
NO

D.8.1 Please use this space to write which ones you have specifically in mind
600 character(s) maximum

D.9. To what extent are the activities of the CS2 JU coherent with other activities of the Horizon 2020
programme?
Not at all coherent
Somewhat coherent
Very coherent
No opinion
D.9.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

D.10. What is the relation of the CS2 JU with other Union funding programmes and/or with similar
international, national or intergovernmental programmes?
Complementarity
Synergies
Potential overlaps
No opinion
D.10.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

35

D.11. Do you have any experience in combining different sources of EU funds and/or with national funds
for research and over the innovation value chain?
YES
NO

D.11.1. Please use this space to share your experience in highlighting the advantages or explaining the
encountered problems
600 character(s) maximum
It is important to deal with the ESIF budget owner instead of the regional programme owner.

E. Efficiency
E.1. When you applied for funding from CS2 JU, did you think that the application procedure was
straightforward and simple?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.2. When you applied for funding from CS2 JU, was the administrative burden for preparing the
proposal within acceptable limits?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.3. Can you make any suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the application procedure?
YES
NO
E.3.1. Please use this space to provide your suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the
application procedure
600 character(s) maximum

36

E.4. You consider that the CS2 JU overall budget (public and private) in relation to its objectives and
expected outcomes is:
Too low and therefore it should be increased
Appropriate
Too high and therefore it should be partly used for other types of research and innovation
actions in this area
No opinion
E.5. Please use this space to provide your comments
600 character(s) maximum
Progress and realisation of the goals set for Clean Sky (I and II) is somewhat slow.

F. Overall
F.1. Please provide here any further comments
600 character(s) maximum

The 'Electronic Components and Systems for European
Leadership' Joint Undertaking (ECSEL JU)

37

Introduction to ECSEL JU
The 'Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership' - ECSEL JU (Council

Regulation (EU) No 561/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the ECSEL Joint Undertaking), set up
under Horizon 2020, is the merger of two pre-existing JUs under FP7, ENIAC and ARTEMIS,
encompassing areas of embedded/cyber physical systems, nanoelectronics as well as smart
systems. It is a tri-partite Joint Undertaking between the European Union, the ECSEL Participating
States and the industrial associations AENEAS, ARTEMISIA and EPoSS. It is the only JU in which
Member States financially contribute. It brings together various stakeholders in order to boost the
development of a strong and globally competitive electronics components and systems industry in
Europe and supporting electronics applications, from healthcare and personal safety to
entertainment and safer transport. ECSEL JU has the objective of ensuring the availability of
electronic components and systems for key markets and for addressing societal challenges.
ECSEL JU supports a collaborative, industrially-relevant Research, Development and Innovation
programme, as is identified in the multi-annual strategic plan, which develops the essential
capabilities and provides the “Smarts” behind the applications that can help address societal
challenges (mobility, energy, health, society & production). Ultimately the ECSEL JU will strengthen
European global competitiveness, both of its electronics industries and of industries that rely upon
electronics, to further their innovation potential.
ECSEL JU will run from June 2014 for 10 years and it will have a total budget of some €5 billion, split
as follows:
Up to € 1.184 billion from the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, to cover administrative and
operational costs
At least €1.170 billion from Participating States that is commensurate with the Union’s
financial contribution and
The remainder from the beneficiaries

* A.5. What type of organisation do you represent?
Please select one of the following:

Not applicable (I respond as an individual in my personal capacity)
Private for profit organisation, excluding education (PRC)
Member State administration
Regional/local administration
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Research organisation
Academia
Other

38

Please specify
Ministry of Economic Affairs

* A.5.1. In the sector of:
Automotive
Electronics
Semiconductors
Systems
Energy
Information and Communications Technology
Service Provider
Medical - Health
Other
Please specify

A.6. Are you a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
(SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. The
category of SMEs is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not
exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. Within the SME category, a small
enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance
sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. Within the SME category, a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs
fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million).

YES
NO

* A.7. Are you familiar with the objectives and activities of the Electronic Components and Systems for
European Leadership Joint Undertaking (ECSEL JU)?
Not at all familiar
Slightly familiar
Moderately familiar
Very familiar

* A.8. Have you applied for funding from the ECSEL JU?
YES
NO

39

* A.9. Are you directly involved with the ECSEL JU?
YES
NO
A.9.1. You are involved with the ECSEL JU, as
YES
Industrial Association member (AENEAS, ARTEMISIA,
EPoSS)
Beneficiary of ECSEL JU
Evaluator
Advisory board member
Other

Please specify

Public authority

B. European added value
B.1. In your view, could the industry along with other possible actors at national level but without the
involvement of the EU and Member States, be able to overcome the barriers which hinder innovation
and drive up costs in the electronic components and systems sector?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.2. Do you agree with the EU cooperating with the Member and Associated States and industry as a tripartite model in the context of a public-private partnership so that research and innovation in electronic
components and systems strengthens the market in Europe?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

40

B.3. What is the added value of this tri-partite public-private partnership?
Please rate element(s) of European added value that you consider relevant.
a: Not important at all b: Not important c: Important d: Very important e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

B.3.1. Better use of
available funding
B.3.2.Integration of
European research
B.3.3.More cross border
collaboration
B.3.4.More cross-sector
/interdisci-plinary
collaboration
B.3.5. Quicker adoption of
standards
B.3.6. Allowing leverage of
external pools of knowledge
B.3.7. Better availability of
research results
B.3.8. Encouragement of
companies to share
expertise

B.4. Please provide here any other elements of European added value you consider to be relevant
600 character(s) maximum

Alignment of national policies with EU policies.

41

B.5. "Leverage effect" is defined as the ratio between the total contributions provided by the members of
the JU other than the EU and the EU contribution. The Council Regulation establishing ECSEL JU sets
out a minimum 'high' leverage effect throughout its lifespan – for every 1€ the EU spends, the ECSEL
Participating States collectively spend at least 1€ as well and the industrial partners are contributing at
least €1.4, resulting in a leverage effect of at least 2.4 (tri-partite funding model). Please note that
AENEAS, ARTEMISIA and EPoSS industrial associations do not directly receive any EU funding and
do not participate in ECSEL JU projects.
The current minimum leverage effect foreseen of 2.4 is (in assessing the overall impact of ECSEL,
investments from all legal entities other than the Union and the states participating in ECSEL are
expected to amount to at least EUR 2 340 000 000 – this results in a leverage effect of 3) :

Too low
Realistic
Too high
No opinion

B.5.1. In your opinion what would be the satisfactory leverage effect, and why?
600 character(s) maximum

Current leverage effect is satisfactory.

B.6. Do you consider that ECSEL JU contributes to economic growth and job creation in the EU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.6.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
The ECSEL R&D projects contribute to a European ecosystem which enhances the
European economic growth and job creation considerably.

C. Openness - Transparency

42

C.1. Do you consider that the ECSEL JU website provides the general public and potential participants
with easy access to information?
Please provide your views on the following aspects:
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

C.1.1. The ECSEL JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
information to the public
C.1.2. The ECSEL JU
website provides easily
accessible and sufficient
information about its
funded projects
C.1.3. The ECSEL JU
website provides effective
access to information and
sufficient guidance to
interested organisations
facilitating their
participation in proposals

C2. Do you consider that the ECSEL JU encourages the participation of SMEs?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.2.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Consortium-building events encourage the participation of SMEs, as well as high funding
levels for SMEs. Furthermore, participation of large industrial parties is essential for attracting and
facilitating innovative SMEs.

43

C.3. Do you consider that the current way of defining topics for the calls of proposals is open and
inclusive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

C.3.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
The industrial organisations are open to all participants and they come up with the relevant technology
areas to be addressed.

C.4. Do you consider that ECSEL JU organises a sound and fair proposal evaluation system based on
both scientific and technological excellence and industrial impact?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.4.1. Do you consider that the communication of the evaluation results and the feedback provided to
the applicants is effective and meaningful?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.5. Please use this space to write your comments on the evaluation of proposals and the
communication of the evaluation results
600 character(s) maximum

D. Relevance – Coherence - Effectiveness

44

* D.1. The scientific priorities addressed by the ECSEL JU are set in the Multi Annual Strategic Plan
(MASP) and are aligned with the "Digitisation of European Industry". Is this framework optimal for
defining the Scientifdoic Research and Innovation Agenda followed by the ECSEL JU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

D.2. Do you consider other research and innovation areas not mentioned in MASP as important to be
addressed?
YES
NO
D.2.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other research and innovation areas not currently
addressed
600 character(s) maximum

45

D.3. In your view how effective has ECSEL JU been in terms of:
a: Not at all effective b: Somewhat effective c: Very effective

a

d: No opinion

b

c

d

D.3.1. Contributing to the
development of a strong and
globally competitive electronic
components and systems
industry
D.3.2. Strengthening innovation
capabilities and creating
economic and employment
growth in the Union
D.3.3. Aligning strategies with
Member States to attract
private investment
D.3.4. Maintaining and growing
semiconductor and smart
system manufacturing capability
in Europe
D.3.5. Securing and
strengthening a commanding
position in design and systems
engineering
D.3.6. Providing access for all
stakeholders to a world-class
infrastructure for design and
manufacturing
D.3.7. Building a dynamic
ecosystem involving Small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises
(SMEs), strengthening existing
clusters and creating new
clusters

D.4. Should the JU undertake any other tasks in order to achieve the objectives set out in the
Regulation?
YES
NO

46

D.4.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other tasks that the JU should undertake
600 character(s) maximum
The JU currently is instrumental in setting up so-called Lighthouse initiatives. This is a good additional
action wihich enhances the impact of ECSEL.

D.5. Do you think that the ECSEL JU can contribute towards improving the competitiveness, industrial
leadership, economic growth and job creation of Europe in the electronic components and systems
sector?
In the short term: over the next five years
In the medium term: over the next ten years
In the long term: over the next twenty years
No opinion
D.5.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your answer
600 character(s) maximum
R&D activities take their time to achieve tangible results.

47

D.6. Which would you consider as major benefits of participating in an ECSEL JU project?
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

*D.6.1. Direct financial
support for innovative
research and development

*D.6.2. Greater visibility
across Europe /Reputation

*D.6.3. Stronger
involvement in existing or
new clusters in promising
new areas

*D.6.4. Enhanced access
to new markets, business
opportunities and funding
sources

*D.6.5. Inclusion in open
innovation networks, with
direct contact to leading
researchers in universities
and industry

D.7. Please use this space to write about other benefits not mentioned above
600 character(s) maximum

D.8. Do you consider that ECSEL JU projects have resulted in specific scientific and/or technological
successes?
YES
NO

48

D.8.1 Please use this space to write which ones you have specifically in mind
600 character(s) maximum
The JU ECSEL has been running for three years now, so its too early to refer to scientific or technological
results, but given the contents of the projects that are running now, e.g. in the field of nanoelectronics
equipment (ASML wafer steppers-EUV), successes can definitely be expected

D.9. To what extent are the activities of the ECSEL JU coherent with other activities of the Horizon 2020
programme?
Not at all coherent
Somewhat coherent
Very coherent
No opinion
D.9.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
The link between the regular H2020 calls and ECSEL can be improved. Lower TRL-level projects can be
of value for the ECSEL projects. Also, a bettter link between ECSEL and other JTIs should be attempted.

D.10. What is the relation of the ECSEL JU with other Union funding programmes and/or with similar
international, national or intergovernmental programmes?
Complementarity
Synergies
Potential overlaps
No opinion
D.10.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
ECSEL has synergies with and is complementary to the PENTA Eureka programme. Potential overlap
exists with regard to the ITEA3 programme, as the boundaries between them are not clear, although
ECSEL focusses more on technology and ITEA3 on end user applications.

D.11. Do you have any experience in combining different sources of EU funds and/or with national funds
for research and over the innovation value chain?
YES
NO

49

D.11.1. Please use this space to share your experience in highlighting the advantages or explaining the
encountered problems
600 character(s) maximum

E. Efficiency
E.1. When you applied for funding from the ECSEL JU, did you think that the application procedure was
straightforward and simple?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.2. When you applied for funding from the ECSEL JU, was the administrative burden for preparing the
proposal within acceptable limits?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.3. Can you make any suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the application procedure?
YES
NO
E.3.1. Please use this space to provide your suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the
application procedure
600 character(s) maximum
No opinion, as NFA.

50

E.4. You consider that the ECSEL JU overall budget (public and private) in relation to its objectives and
expected outcomes is:
Too low and therefore it should be increased
Appropriate
Too high and therefore it should be partly used for other types of research and innovation
actions in this area
No opinion

E.5. Please use this space to provide your comments
600 character(s) maximum

No opinion, as NFA.

F. Overall
F.1. Please provide here any further comments
600 character(s) maximum

The 'Fuel Cells and Hydrogen' Joint Undertaking (FCH2 JU)

51

Introduction to FCH JU and FCH2 JU
The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) under FP7, and its successor FCH2 JU
under Horizon 2020, is Europe's leading public-private partnership in the field of fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies. It is a Joint Undertaking between the European Union, the Industry Grouping
Hydrogen Europe, and the Research Grouping N.ERGHY (an association representing the interests
of European universities and research institutes in the FCH2 JU). As such, it brings together
industrial partners from both transport and energy sectors, innovative SME's, universities and
research establishments. It was initially set up with the intention of accelerating the development and
deployment of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies, and has in its second phase put more emphasis
on demonstration, innovation and activities to support to activities on market introduction.
The FCH2 JU covers activities in transport (mainly fuel cell electric vehicles and refuelling
infrastructure) and the energy sector (production of hydrogen from renewable energy sources, highly
efficient generation of electricity and heat through fuel cells, and storage of hydrogen as energy
carrier), as well as cross-cutting topics focusing on education, regulations, codes and standards, and
safety.
The FCH2 JU will run from 2014 to the end of 2024, and will have an EU contribution of € 665
Million, out of which € 95 Million conditional on contributions of Members other than the EU reaching
at least €380 Million.
The contributions from Members other than the EU consist of the following:
A cash contribution of up to € 19 Million to cover 50% of the JU's administrative expenditure
In-kind contributions via participation in projects funded by the FCH2 JU
In-kind contributions via additional activities for at least € 285 Million

The additional activities referred to in the last point consist of costs incurred by the Members outside
of the FCH2 JU, but contributing to the objectives of the FCH2 Joint Technology Initiative.

* A.5. What type of organisation do you represent?
Please select one of the following:

Not applicable (I respond as an individual in my personal capacity)
Private for profit organisation, excluding education (PRC)
Member State administration
Regional/local administration
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Research organisation
Academia
Other

52

Please specify
Ministry of Economic Affairs

* A.5.1. In the sector of:
Vehicles and related components
Hydrogen refueling infrastructure
Fuel cells and components
Hydrogen production
Energy production and distribution
Energy storage
Other
Please specify

A.6. Are you a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
(SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. The
category of SMEs is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not
exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. Within the SME category, a small
enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance
sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. Within the SME category, a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs
fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million).

YES
NO

* A.7. Are you familiar with the objectives and activities of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint
Undertaking (FCH2 JU)?
Not at all familiar
Slightly familiar
Moderately familiar
Very familiar

* A.8. Have you applied for funding from the FCH2 JU?
YES
NO

53

* A.9. Are you directly involved with the FCH2 JU?
YES
NO

A.9.1. You are you involved with the FCH2 JU, as:
YES
Member of Hydrogen Europe/N.
ERGHY
Beneficiary of FCH2 JU
Evaluator
Advisory board member
Other

Please specify

B. European added value
B.1. In your view, could industry along with other possible actors at national level but without the
involvement of the EU, be able to overcome the barriers which hinder the market introduction and
deployment of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.2. Do you agree with the EU cooperating with industry in the context of a public-private partnership so
that fuel cells and hydrogen technologies can be introduced into the market and deployed?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

54

B.3. What is the added value of this public-private partnership?
Please rate element(s) of European added value that you consider relevant.
a: Not important at all b: Not important c: Important d: Very important e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

B.3.1. Better use of available
funding
B.3.2. Attraction of best
players in the sector
B.3.3. Better coordination of
European research efforts,
overcoming fragmentation
B.3.4. More cross border
collaboration
B.3.5. More cross-sector
/interdisciplinary/multistakeholder collaboration
B.3.6. Quicker adoption of
standards
B.3.7. Increased synergy
with sources of funding
outside FCH 2 JU
B.3.8. Better availability of
research results and crossfertilisation of knowledge
B.3.9. Help in overcoming
first mover risk
B.3.10. Greater scale of
collaborations and activities
B.3.11. Faster introduction
on the market

B.4. Please provide here any other elements of European added value you consider to be relevant
600 character(s) maximum

55

B.5. "Leverage effect" is defined as the ratio between the total contributions provided by the members of
the JU other than the EU and the EU contribution. The Council Regulation establishing FCH2 JU sets
out the minimum leverage effect throughout its lifespan to 0.57 (i.e. for each euro of public money the
EU contributes, the other members have to contribute at least with €0.57). This leverage is achieved
through participation in projects, as well as through investments in Additional Activities that contribute
to the goals of the FCH2 JU but take place outside its work plan. It should be noted that only
contributions by the members (and their constituent entities) can be counted as leverage, which
represents around 25% of the participation in projects.
The current minimum leverage effect foreseen of 0.57 is:
Too low
Realistic
Too high
No opinion

B.5.1. In your opinion what would be the satisfactory leverage effect, and why?
600 character(s) maximum
Leverage effect should not be the main goal here.

B.6. Do you consider that the FCH2 JU contributes to economic growth and job creation in the EU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.6.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Innovation is essential for sustaining economic growth and job creation.

C. Openness - Transparency

56

C.1. Do you consider that the FCH2 JU website provides the general public and potential participants
with easy access to information?
Please provide your views on the following aspects:
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

C.1.1. The FCH2 JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
information to the public
C.1.2. The FCH2 JU
website provides easily
accessible and sufficient
information about its
funded projects
C.1.3. The FCH2 JU
website provides effective
access to information and
sufficient guidance to
interested organisations
facilitating their
participation in proposals
C.1.4. The FCH2 JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
knowledge generated by
the projects funded under
this JU

C.2. Do you consider that the FCH2 JU encourages the participation of SMEs?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.2.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

57

C.3. Do you consider that the current way of defining topics for the calls of proposals is open and
inclusive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.3.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

C.4. Do you consider that the FCH2 JU organises a sound and fair proposal evaluation system based
on both scientific and technological excellence and industrial relevance?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.4.1. Do you consider that the communication of the evaluation results and the feedback provided to
the applicants is effective and meaningful?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.5. Please use this space to write your comments on the evaluation of proposals and the
communication of the evaluation results
600 character(s) maximum

D. Relevance – Coherence - Effectiveness

58

* D.1. The priorities addressed by the FCH2 JU are set in the Multi-Annual Work Plan (MAWP). Do you
think this document is relevant and coherent with European transport and energy policies and
priorities?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

D.2. Do you consider other research and innovation areas not mentioned in the MAWP as important to
be addressed by the FCH2 JU?
YES
NO
D.2.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other research and innovation areas not currently
addressed
600 character(s) maximum
Large scale distribution and storage infrastructure are not sufficiently addressed.

D.3. In your view how effective has the FCH2 JU been in terms of:
a: Not at all effective b: Somewhat effective c: Very effective

a

d: No opinion

b

c

d

D.3.1. Developing a strong,
sustainable and globally
competitive fuel cells and
hydrogen sector in the EU
D.3.2. Reducing the production
cost of FC systems to be used
in transport applications, while
increasing their lifetime to levels
which can compete with
conventional technologies

59

D.3.3. Increasing the electrical
efficiency and durability of FC
for power production to levels
competitive with conventional
technologies, while reducing
costs
D.3.4. Increasing the energy
efficiency of production of
hydrogen mainly from water
electrolysis and renewable
sources while reducing
operating and capital costs, so
that the combined system of the
hydrogen production and the
conversion using the fuel cell
system can compete with the
alternatives for electricity
production available on the
market
D.3.5. Demonstrating on a large
scale the feasibility of using
hydrogen to support integration
of renewable energy sources
into the energy systems,
including through its use as a
competitive energy storage
medium for electricity produced
from renewable energy sources;
D.3.6. Reducing the use of
Critical raw materials, for
instance through low-platinum
or platinum-free resources and
through recycling or reducing or
avoiding the use of rare earth
elements

D.4.Should the JU undertake any other tasks in order to achieve the objectives set out in the
Regulation?
YES
NO

60

D.4.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other tasks that the JU should undertake
600 character(s) maximum
The SBIR programme is a competition in which companies are asked to investigate a technical challenge and
present a solution. During fase 1, a selected group gets a small feasibility assignment. The companies present
their solutions to a jury. The jury selects 2 companies and they will get an assignment to develop their solution.

D.5. Do you think that the FCH2 JU can contribute towards improving the competitiveness and industrial
leadership of Europe in the transport and energy sector?
In the short term: over the next five years
In the medium term: over the next ten years
In the long term: over the next twenty years
No opinion
D.5.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your answer
600 character(s) maximum
FCH technologies will take a long time to become relevant.

61

D.6. Which would you consider as major benefits of participating in a FCH2 JU project?
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

*D.6.1. Direct financial
support for innovative
research and development

*D.6.2. Greater visibility
across Europe for your entity
/Reputation

*D.6.3. Enhanced access to
knowledge and technologies

*D.6.4. Enhanced access to
new markets, business
opportunities and funding
sources

*D.6.5. Inclusion in open
innovation networks, with
direct contact to leading
researchers in universities
and the industry

D.7. Please use this space to write about other benefits not mentioned above
600 character(s) maximum

D.8. Do you consider that FCH2 JU projects have resulted in specific scientific and/or technological
successes?
YES
NO
D.8.1. Please use this space to write which ones you have specifically in mind
600 character(s) maximum
Many projects are listed on the website.

62

D.9. To what extent are the activities of the FCH2 JU coherent with other activities of the Horizon 2020
programme?
Not at all coherent
Somewhat coherent
Very coherent
No opinion
D.9.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Some coherence with FET under Excellent Science, as well as the Societal Challenge 'Secure, Clean
and Efficient Energy'.

D.10. What is the relation of the FCH2 JU with other Union funding programmes and/or with similar
international, national or intergovernmental programmes?
Complementarity
Synergies
Potential overlaps
No opinion
D.10.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

D.11. Do you have any experience in combining different sources of EU funds and/or with national funds
for research and over the innovation value chain?
YES
NO
D.11.1. Please use this space to share your experience in highlighting the advantages or explaining the
encountered problems
600 character(s) maximum

E. Efficiency

63

E.1. When you applied for funding from the FCH2 JU, did you think that the application procedure was
straightforward and simple?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

E.2. When you applied for funding from the FCH2 JU, was the administrative burden for preparing the
proposal within acceptable limits?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.3. Can you make any suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the application procedure?
YES
NO
E.3.1. Please use this space to provide your suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the
application procedure
600 character(s) maximum

E.4. You consider that the FCH2 JU overall budget (public and private) in relation to its objectives and
expected outcomes is:
Too low and therefore it should be increased
Appropriate
Too high and therefore it should be partly used for other types of research and innovation
actions in this area
No opinion
E.5. Please use this space to provide your comments
600 character(s) maximum

64

F. Overall
F.1. Please provide here any further comments
600 character(s) maximum

The 'Innovative Medicines Initiative' Joint Undertaking

Introduction to IMI JU and IMI2 JU
The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI JU) under FP7 and its successor under Horizon 2020, IMI2
JU (Council Regulation (EU) No 557/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the Innovative Medicines

Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking), is Europe's largest public-private initiative aiming to speed up the
development of better and safer medicines for patients. It is a Joint Undertaking between the
European Union and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
(EFPIA). It brings together companies, universities, public laboratories, innovative SMEs, patient
groups and regulators in order to boost pharmaceutical innovation in Europe. IMI2 JU has specifically
the objective of significantly improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the drug development
process with the long-term aim that the pharmaceutical sector produces more effective and safer
innovative medicines.
IMI2 JU covers all areas of life science research and innovation of public health interest, as identified
by the World Health Organisation report on "Priority Medicines for Europe and the World" which has
been updated in 2013. The initiative should constantly seek to involve a broader range of partners
from pharmaceuticals to sectors such as biomedical imaging, medical information technology,
diagnostics and animal health industries.
IMI2 JU will run from 2014 to the end of 2024 and it will have a total budget of up to €3.276 billion,
split as follows:
Up to € 1.425 billion from the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, to match at least 1.425 billion
from EFPIA and its constituent or affiliated entities
Up to €213 million from the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, to match up to €213 million from
other organisations that decide to join IMI2 as Associated Partners

65

* A.5. What type of organisation do you represent?
Please select one of the following:

Not applicable (I respond as an individual in my personal capacity)
Private for profit organisation, excluding education (PRC)
Member State administration
Regional/local administration
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Research organisation
Academia
Other

Please specify
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport

* A.5.1. In the sector of:
Pharmaceuticals
Vaccines
Biotechnology
Diagnostics
Biomedical imaging
Medical information technologies
Animal health
Other
Please specify

A.6. Are you a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
(SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. The
category of SMEs is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not
exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. Within the SME category, a small
enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance
sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. Within the SME category, a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs
fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million).

YES
NO

66

* A.7. Are you familiar with the objectives and activities of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint
Undertaking (IMI2 JU)?
Not at all familiar
Slightly familiar
Moderately familiar
Very familiar

* A.8. Have you applied for funding from the IMI2 JU?
YES
NO

* A.9. Are you directly involved with the IMI2 JU?
YES
NO
A.9.1. You are involved with the IMI2 JU, as:
YES
Member of EFPIA
Associated partner of IMI2 JU
Beneficiary of IMI2 JU
Evaluator
Advisory board member
Other

Please specify
Involved as national authority.

B. European added value

67

B.1. In your view, could the pharmaceutical industries along with other possible actors at national level
but without the involvement of the EU, be able to overcome the barriers which hinder innovation and
drive up costs in the life science sector?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

B.2. Do you agree with the EU cooperating with industry in the context of a public-private partnership so
that the life science research brings better results to the patients and the market in Europe?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

68

B.3. What is the added value of this public-private partnership?
Please rate element(s) of European added value that you consider relevant.
a: Not important at all b: Not important c: Important d: Very important e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

B.3.1. Better use of available
funding
B.3.2.Integration of
European research
B.3.3.Greater scale of
collaborations and activities
B.3.4.More cross border
collaboration
B.3.5.More cross-sector
/interdisciplinary collaboration
B.3.6. Quicker adoption of
standards
B.3.7.Faster delivery of
benefits for the patients
B.3.8. Allowing leverage of
external pools of knowledge
B.3.9. Better availability of
research results
B.3.10.Encouragement of
companies to share expertise

B.4. Please provide here any other elements of European added value you consider to be relevant
600 character(s) maximum

69

B.5. "Leverage effect" is defined as the ratio between the total contributions provided by the members of
the JU other than the EU and the EU contribution. The Council Regulation establishing IMI2 JU sets
out the minimum leverage effect throughout its lifespan to 1 (i.e. for each euro of public money the EU
contributes, the industrial partners have to contribute at least with €1). Please note that EFPIA itself,
EFPIA companies and IMI2 JU Associated Partners do not receive any EU funding for participating in
IMI2 JU projects. EU funding goes to Universities, SMEs, mid-sized companies, patient groups, etc.
The current minimum leverage effect foreseen of 1 is:
Too low
Realistic
Too high
No opinion

B.5.1. In your opinion what would be the satisfactory leverage effect, and why?
600 character(s) maximum
Pharmaceutical innovation should be structured so that it focuses on unmet health needs and delivers therapeutic
advances that are affordable and accessible to all, not just profitable for manufacturers. Truly innovative drugs very
often trace their origin back to publicly funded research. The international debate about unsustainable drug prices
shows the need for a renewal of the discussion about who takes the risks and who gets the rewards.
B.6. Do you consider that IMI2 JU contributes to economic growth and job creation in the EU?

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.6.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

C. Openness - Transparency

70

C.1. Do you consider that the IMI2 JU website provides the general public and potential new members
and participants with easy access to information?
Please provide your views on the following aspects:
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

C.1.1. The IMI2 JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
information to the public
C.1.2. The IMI2 JU
website provides easily
accessible and sufficient
information about its
funded projects
C.1.3. The IMI2 JU
website provides effective
access to information and
sufficient guidance to
interested organisations
facilitating their
participation in proposals
C.1.4. The IMI2 JU
website provides effective
access to information and
sufficient guidance to
interested organisations in
order to facilitate them in
becoming Associated
Partners in IMI2 JU
C.1.5. The IMI2 JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
knowledge generated by
the projects funded under
this JU

71

C.2. Do you consider that the IMI2 JU encourages the participation of SMEs?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

C.2.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

C.3. Do you consider that the process for engaging with Associated Partners of IMI2 JU is sufficiently
open, non-discriminatory and competitive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.4. Do you consider that the current way of defining topics for the calls of proposals is open and
inclusive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.4.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

72

C.5. Do you consider that IMI2 JU organises a sound and fair proposal evaluation system based on both
scientific and technological excellence and industrial relevance?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

C.5.1. Do you consider that the communication of the evaluation results and the feedback provided to
the applicants is effective and meaningful?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.6. Please use this space to write your comments on the evaluation of proposals and the
communication of the evaluation results
600 character(s) maximum

D. Relevance – Coherence - Effectiveness

* D.1. The scientific priorities addressed by the IMI2 JU are set in the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA)
and are aligned with the 2013 update of the World Health Organisation's "Priority Medicines for Europe
and the World" report.
Do you think that this framework is the most appropriate for defining the Scientific Research Agenda
followed by the IMI2 JU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
D.2. Do you consider other research and innovation areas not mentioned in the SRA as important to be
addressed?
YES
NO

73

D.2.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other research and innovation areas not currently
addressed
600 character(s) maximum
Investigation and implementation of new business models for sustainable and affordable exploitation of
results.

D.3. In your view how effective has IMI2 JU been in terms of:
a: Not at all effective b: Somewhat effective c: Very effective

a

d: No opinion

b

c

d

D.3.1. Supporting the
development and
implementation of precompetitive research and of
innovation activities of strategic
importance to the Unions in the
life science sector
D.3.2. Increasing the success
rate in clinical trials of priority
medicines identified by the
World Health Organisation
D.3.3. Reducing the time to
reach clinical proof of concept
in medicine
D.3.4. Developing new
therapies for diseases for which
there is a high unmet need and
limited incentives to bring to
market (such as Alzheimer's
disease and antimicrobial
resistance)
D.3.5. Developing diagnostic
and treatment biomarkers
D.3.6. Reducing the failure rate
of potential new vaccines
D.3.7. Improving the drug
development process
D.3.8. Contributing to
personalised medicine

74

D.4.Should the JU undertake any other tasks in order to achieve the objectives set out in the
Regulation?
YES
NO

D.4.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other tasks that the JU should undertake
600 character(s) maximum
The above mentioned objectives will be achieved, but this takes more time.

D.5. Do you think that the IMI2 JU can contribute towards improving the competitiveness and industrial
leadership of Europe in the life science sector?
In the short term: over the next five years
In the medium term: over the next ten years
In the long term: over the next twenty years
No opinion
D.5.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your answer
600 character(s) maximum

75

D.6. Which would you consider as major benefits of participating in an IMI2 JU project?
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

*D.6.1. Direct financial
support for innovative
research and development

*D.6.2. Greater visibility
across Europe for your
entity/Reputation

*D.6.1. Direct financial
support for innovative
research and development

*D.6.2. Greater visibility
across Europe/Reputation

*D.6.3. Greater
understanding of the drug
development process
D.6.4. Enhanced access to
new markets, business
opportunities and funding
sources
D.6.5. Inclusion in open
innovation networks, with
direct contact to leading
researchers in universities
and the industry

D.7. Please use this space to write about other benefits not mentioned above
600 character(s) maximum

76

D.8. Do you consider that IMI2 JU projects have resulted in specific scientific and/or technological
successes?
YES
NO

D.8.1. If yes, please use this space to write which ones you have specifically in mind
600 character(s) maximum
Presented in IMI publications: http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/scientific-publications

D.9. To what extent are the activities of the IMI2 JU coherent with other activities of the Horizon 2020
programme?
Not at all coherent
Somewhat coherent
Very coherent
No opinion
D.9.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Both the IMI JU and member states pay careful attention to avoiding overlap and creating synergies where
possible.

D.10. What is the relation of the IMI2 JU with other Union funding programmes and/or with similar
international, national or intergovernmental programmes
Complementarity
Synergies
Potential overlaps
No opinion
D.10.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

77

D.11. Do you have any experience in combining different sources of EU funds and/or with national funds
for research and over the innovation value chain?
YES
NO

D.11.1. Please use this space to share your experience in highlighting the advantages or explaining the
encountered problems
600 character(s) maximum

E. Efficiency
E.1. When you applied for funding from the IMI2 JU, did you think that the application procedure was
straightforward and simple?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.2. When you applied for funding from the IMI2 JU, was the administrative burden for preparing the
proposal within acceptable limits?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.3. Can you make any suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the application procedure?
YES
NO
E.3.1. Please use this space to provide your suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the
application procedure
600 character(s) maximum

78

E.4. You consider that the IMI2 JU overall budget (public and private) in relation to its objectives and
expected outcomes is:
Too low and therefore it should be increased
Appropriate
Too high and therefore it should be partly used for other types of research and innovation
actions in this area
No opinion
E.5. Please use this space to provide your comments
600 character(s) maximum

F. Overall
F.1. Please provide here any further comments
600 character(s) maximum

The 'SESAR' Joint Undertaking (SJU)

79

Introduction to the SESAR Joint Undertaking
The SESAR project is an initiative of the EU to modernise and harmonise Air Traffic Management
(ATM) in Europe. It is the technological pillar of the EU's broader Single European Sky initiative
aiming to reform and improve the performance of ATM in Europe through a holistic approach
affecting all aspects and actors of ATM.
Established in 2007 as a Public Private Partnership (Council Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 of 27

February 2007), the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU) is responsible for managing the activities of the
research and development phase of the SESAR project. Its main objective is to coordinate and
concentrate all ATM related research and innovation efforts in the EU.
Founded by the EU and Eurocontrol (European organisation for the safety of air navigation), the SJU
is composed of industry members who together with their partners and affiliate associations
represent over 100 organisations from across the aviation community, from civil and military air
navigation service providers, to airports, civil and military airspace users, staff associations,
academia and research centres.
The SJU has been entrusted with the management of EU funds allocated to the SESAR
development phase since 2007.The SJU was initially established for eight years, in the FP7 and TENT frameworks, from 2007 to the end of 2016 under the EU's 2007-2013 multi-annual financial
perspectives. In 2014, the Council amended the SJU’s founding Regulation to extend its duration to
31 December 2024 in the framework of Horizon 2020.
The total budget of the SJU is composed of:
EUR 2.1 billion for the SJU's 2007-2016 work programme (SESAR 1), which includes an EU
contribution of EUR 350 million from FP7 and EUR 350 million from TEN-T under the 20072013 financial perspectives
EUR 1.6 billion for the 2014-2024 work programme (SESAR 2020), which includes an EU
contribution of EUR 585 million from Horizon 2020 under the EU's 2014-2020 multi-annual
financial framework.

The SJU has established a research ‘pipeline to innovation’ in SESAR 2020, comprising three
distinct threads of activities aiming to develop and validate innovative ATM concepts: Exploratory
research; Industrial research; and Very Large Scale Demonstrations.

80

* A.5. What type of organisation do you represent?
Please select one of the following:

Not applicable (I respond as an individual in my personal capacity)
Private for profit organisation, excluding education (PRC)
Member State administration
Regional/local administration
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Research organisation
Academia
Other

Please specify
Ministrry of Infrastructure and the Environment

* A.5.1. In the sector of:
Air Navigation Service Provider
Airport
Civil Airspace User
Manufacturing industry
Other
Please specify
Civil Aviation Department

A.6. Are you a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
(SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. The
category of SMEs is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not
exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. Within the SME category, a small
enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance
sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. Within the SME category, a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs
fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million).

YES
NO

81

* A.7. Are you familiar with the objectives and activities of the SJU?
Not at all familiar
Slightly familiar
Moderately familiar
Very familiar

* A.8. Have you applied for funding from SJU?
YES
NO

* A.9. Are you directly involved with the SJU?
YES
NO
A.9.1. You are involved with the SJU, as:
YES
Industry member
Beneficiary of SJU
Evaluator
Advisory board member
Other

Please specify

B. European added value

82

B.1. In your view, could the ATM industry along with other possible actors at national level but without
the involvement of the EU, develop innovative and interoperable solutions in order to modernise and
harmonise the European ATM system?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

B.2. Do you agree with the EU cooperating with industry in the context of a public-private partnership so
that the ATM research brings better results to all ATM stakeholders in Europe?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

83

B.3. What is the European added value of this public-private partnership?
Please rate element(s) of European added value that you consider relevant.
a: Not important at all b: Not important c: Important d: Very important e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

B.3.1. Better use of available
funding
B.3.2. Integration of European
research
B.3.3. More cross border
cooperation
B.3.4. More cross-sector
/interdisciplinary/multistakeholder cooperation
B.3.5. Quicker adoption of
standards
B.3.6. Knowledge pooling and
sharing
B.3.7. Better access to research
results
B.3.8. Incentives for companies
to share expertise
B.3.9. Better support of the
Union policies
B.3.10. Facilitation of
industrialization and deployment
process
B.3.11. Research risk sharing
and mitigation
B.3.12. Improved cooperation
with 3rd countries
B.3.13. Better market access

84

B.4. Please provide here any other elements of European added value you consider to be relevant
600 character(s) maximum
The prediction of EU broad developments.

B.5. "Leverage effect" is defined as the ratio between the total contributions provided by the members of
the JU other than the EU and the EU contribution. For the SJU there are no specific minimum
expected leverage, but currently, for the activities foreseen under Horizon 2020, the ratio stands at
1.41 (825M EUR invested by Members against a 500M EUR EU contribution).
The current minimum leverage effect foreseen of 1.41 is:
Too low
Realistic
Too high
No opinion
B.5.1. In your opinion what would be the satisfactory leverage effect, and why?
600 character(s) maximum
There is not one satisfactory leverage effect - there are promising developments, each with a different
leverage effect.

B.6. Do you consider that SJU contributes to economic growth and job creation in the EU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.6.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

C. Openness - Transparency

85

C.1. Do you consider that the SJU website provides the general public and potential participants with
easy access to information?
Please provide your views on the following aspects:
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

C.1.1. The SJU website
provides easy and
effective access to
information to the public
C.1.2. The SJU website
provides easily accessible
and sufficient information
about its funded projects
C.1.3. The SJU website
provides effective access
to information and
sufficient guidance to
interested organisations
facilitating their
participation in proposals
C.1.4. The CS2 JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
knowledge generated by
the projects funded under
this JU

C2. Do you consider that the SJU encourages the participation of SMEs?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.2.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Visible effort is being made; however, it is very difficult to encourage SMEs to participate in long and
complex processes.

86

C.3. Do you consider that the current way of defining topics for the calls of proposals is open and
inclusive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

C.3.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Proposals are more driven by/based on policy wishes than industry wishes.

C.4. Do you consider that the budget split between members' activities (max. 70% of EU funding to the
SJU) and non-members activities (min. 30% of EU funding to the SJU) is appropriate to ensure a wide
participation of the sector at large?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.5. Do you consider that SJU organises a sound and fair proposal evaluation system based on both
scientific and technological excellence and industrial relevance?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.5.1. Do you consider that the communication of the evaluation results and the feedback provided to
the applicants is effective and meaningful?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

87

C.6. Please use this space to write your comments on the evaluation of proposals and the
communication of the evaluation results
600 character(s) maximum

D. Relevance – Coherence - Effectiveness

* D.1.The research and development agenda of the SJU is set out in the European ATM Master Plan
following a comprehensive planning exercise carried out in cooperation with the European
Commission, Member States, various aviation stakeholders and SJU Members.
Do you think that this framework is the most appropriate for defining the European Research &
Innovation agenda for ATM?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

88

D.2. In your view how effective has SJU been in terms of:
a: Not at all effective b: Somewhat effective c: Very effective

a

d: No opinion

b

c

d

D.2.1. Supporting the
development of ATM solutions
D.2.2. Accelerating ATM
research
D.2.3. Validating SESAR
solutions
D.2.4. Supporting the transition
to standardisation and
industrialisation
D.2.5. Resolving existing
technical limitations (e.g. interoperability problems)
D.2.6. Mitigating risks linked to
innovation
D.2.7. Aligning ATM Research
to the Single European Sky
policy
D.2.8. Transitioning from FP7 to
Horizon 2020 environment

D.3. Should the JU undertake any other tasks in order to achieve the objectives set out in the
Regulation?
YES
NO
D.3.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other tasks that the JU should undertake
600 character(s) maximum
A recommendation for the SJU is to look more closely at the developments in the industry. Very good
ideas sometimes fail because the industry is not interested enough.

89

D.4. Do you think that the SJU can contribute towards improving the competitiveness and industrial
leadership of Europe in the ATM sector?
In the short term: over the next five years
In the medium term: over the next ten years
In the long term: over the next twenty years
No opinion

D.4.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your answer
600 character(s) maximum
It is not only the SJU that influences the developments in the EU; every stakeholder should have the
same sense of urgency.

D.5. Which would you consider as major benefits of participating in a SESAR JU project?
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

*D.5.1. Financial support
for innovative research
and development

*D.5.2. Greater visibility
across Europe/Reputation

*D.5.3.Enhanced access
to new markets, business
opportunities and funding
sources

*D.5.4. Inclusion in open
innovation networks, with
direct contact to leading
researchers in universities
and the industry

D.6. Please use this space to write about other benefits not mentioned above
600 character(s) maximum

90

D.7. Do you consider that SJU projects have resulted in specific scientific and/or technological
successes?
YES
NO

D.7.1 Please use this space to write which ones you have specifically in mind
600 character(s) maximum

D.8. To what extent are the activities of the SJU coherent with other activities of the Horizon 2020
programme?
Not at all coherent
Somewhat coherent
Very coherent
No opinion
D.8.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
At the moment, developments could both be incorporated in SESAR and Smart, Green and Integrated
Transport.

D.9. What is the relation of the SJU with other Union funding programmes and/or with similar
international, national or intergovernmental programmes
Complementarity
Synergies
Potential overlaps
No opinion
D.9.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

91

D.10. Do you have any experience in combining different sources of EU funds and/or with national funds
for research and over the innovation value chain?
YES
NO

D.10.1. Please use this space to share your experience in highlighting the advantages or explaining the
encountered problems
600 character(s) maximum

E. Efficiency
E.1. When you applied for funding from the SJU, did you think that the application procedure was
straightforward and simple?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.2. When you applied for funding from the SJU, was the administrative burden for preparing the
proposal within acceptable limits?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
E.3. Can you make any suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the application procedure?
YES
NO
E.3.1. Please use this space to provide your suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the
application procedure
600 character(s) maximum

92

E.4. You consider that the SJU overall budget (public and private) in relation to its objectives and
expected outcomes is:
Too low and therefore it should be increased
Appropriate
Too high and therefore it should be partly used for other types of research and innovation
actions in this area
No opinion
E.5. Please use this space to provide your comments
600 character(s) maximum

F. Overall
F.1. Please provide here any further comments
600 character(s) maximum

The 'Shift2Rail' Joint Undertaking (S2R JU)

93

Introduction to the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking
The Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking (S2R JU) is a new public private partnership in the rail sector,
providing a platform for cooperation that will drive rail innovation as part of the Horizon 2020
Framework Programme (Council Regulation (EU) No 642/2014 of 16 June 2014 establishing the

Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking). The S2R JU pursues research and innovation activities in support of
the achievement of the Single European Railway Area and with a view to improve the attractiveness
and competitiveness of the European rail system. In particular, it is expected to contribute to cutting
the life-cycle cost of railway transport (i.e. costs of building, operating, maintaining and renewing
infrastructure and rolling stock) by as much as 50%, doubling railway capacity and increasing
reliability and punctuality by as much as 50%.
The Shift2Rail activities are organised around five key “Innovation Programmes”: cost-efficient and
reliable trains, including high speed trains and high-capacity trains; advanced traffic management &
control systems; cost-efficient and reliable high capacity infrastructure; IT solutions for attractive
railway services; technologies for sustainable & attractive European freight. Some key trends (e.g.
socio-economics, energy and sustainability, human capital, etc.) are addressed horizontally through
the Cross Cutting Activities. The Joint Undertaking's strategic priorities are summarised in the
Shift2Rail Master Plan adopted by the Governing Board of the S2R JU following endorsement by the
Council. These objectives are further detailed in the Shift2Rail Multi-Annual Action Plan.
The S2R JU will run from 2014 to the end of 2024 and it will have a total budget of €970 million, split
as follows:
Up to €450 million from the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, allocated as follows: up to €315
million to match the contribution of the JU industrial partners and a minimum of €135 million
dedicated to fully open calls, in which the JU members do not participate
A minimum of €470 million from the Shift2Rail private members (Founding Members other
than the Union and Associated Members)

* A.5. What type of organisation do you represent?
Please select one of the following:

Not applicable (I respond as an individual in my personal capacity)
Private for profit organisation, excluding education (PRC)
Member State administration
Regional/local administration
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Research organisation
Academia
Other

94

Please specify
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

* A.5.1. In the sector of:
Railway Undertaking
Infrastructure Manager
Supply Industry
Research
Other
Please specify

A.6. Are you a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
(SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. The
category of SMEs is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not
exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. Within the SME category, a small
enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance
sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. Within the SME category, a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs
fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million).

YES
NO

* A.7. Are you familiar with the objectives and activities of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking (S2R JU)?
Not at all familiar
Slightly familiar
Moderately familiar
Very familiar

* A.8. Have you applied for associated membership (call for associated members) in the S2R JU?
YES
NO

* A.9. Have you applied for funding from the S2R JU?
YES
NO

95

* A.10. Are you directly involved with the S2R JU?
YES
NO
A.10.1. You are involved with the S2R JU, as:
YES
Founding Member of S2R JU
Associated Member of S2R JU
Beneficiary of S2R JU
Evaluator
Advisory board member
Other

Please specify
Advisory organ: SR6

B. European added value
B.1. In your view, could the industry along with other possible actors at national level but without the
involvement of the EU, be able to overcome the barriers which hinder innovation in the rail sector?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.2. Do you agree with the EU cooperating with industry in the context of a public-private partnership so
that rail-related research brings better results to overcome the challenges of the rail sector in Europe
and to develop the Single European Railway Area?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

96

B.3. What is the added value of this public-private partnership?
Please rate element(s) of European added value that you consider relevant.
a: Not important at all b: Not important c: Important d: Very important e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

B.3.1. Better use of
available funding
B.3.2. Integration of
European research
B.3.3. More cross border
collaboration
B.3.4. More cross-sector
/interdisciplinary
collaboration
B.3.5. Quicker adoption of
standards and enhanced
market-uptake
B.3.6. Allowing leverage of
external pools of knowledge
B.3.7. Better availability of
research results
B.3.8. Encouragement of
companies to collaborate
and share expertise

B.4. Please provide here any other elements of European added value you consider to be relevant
600 character(s) maximum

97

B.5. "Leverage effect" is defined as the ratio between the total contributions provided by the members of
the JU other than the EU and the EU contribution. The Council Regulation establishing S2R JU sets
out the minimum leverage effect throughout its lifespan to 1.04 (i.e. for each euro of public money the
EU contributes, the industrial partners have to contribute at least with €1.04). Please note that this
leverage ratio is limited to the calls organized by the S2R JU to its private members (CFM).
The current minimum leverage effect foreseen of 1.04 is (this figure is based on the ratio between the
entire EU contribution to the S2R JU and the contribution of the JU private members. However, only a
maximum of 70% of the EU contribution is to be targeted to the JU private members in accordance
with the S2R Regulation. This mean that in practice, the effective leverage effect of the EU budget
spent with the JU members reaches 1.49):
Too low
Realistic
Too high
No opinion

B.5.1. In your opinion what would be the satisfactory leverage effect, and why?
600 character(s) maximum

B.6. Do you consider that the S2R JU contributes to economic growth and job creation in the EU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
B.6.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

See B7 and B8.

98

B.7. Do you consider that the S2R JU contributes to the following priorities:
Please provide your view to the following aspects:
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree

d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

B.7.1. Achieve the Single
European Railway Area
and increase interoperability
B.7.2. Enhance the
attractiveness and
competitiveness of the
European railway system to
ensure a modal shift
towards rail as a lowemission mode of transport
B.7.3. Help the European
rail industry to retain and
consolidate its leadership
on the global market for rail
products and services
B.7.4. Boost economic
growth and jobs in the rail
sector at large
B.7.5. Support the rail
sector in meeting the key
challenges it faces (quality
of service, cost reductions,
emerging trends such as
digitalization, etc.)

B.8. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
The first projects only started in the autumn of 2016. It's too early to predict the impact. Hoevewer, approved
proposals are likely to contribute to the abovementioned priorities.

C. Openness - Transparency

99

C.1. Do you consider that the S2R JU website provides the general public and potential participants with
easy access to information?
Please provide your views on the following aspects:
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

C.1.1. The S2R JU
website provides easy and
effective access to
information to the public
C.1.2. The S2R JU
website provides easily
accessible and sufficient
information about its
funded projects
C.1.3. The S2R JU
website provides effective
access to information and
sufficient guidance to
interested organisations
facilitating their
participation in proposals
C.1.4. The S2R JU
website provides effective
access to information and
sufficient guidance to
interested organisations in
order to facilitate them in
becoming Associated
Partners in S2R JU

C2. Do you consider that the S2R JU encourages the participation of SMEs?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

100

C.2.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Procedures are lengthy, simplification would be justified. Also, smaller companies don;t always have the
means to invest in calls and search for partners - bigger companies have dedicated teams and are
therefore in a more priviliged position.

C.3. Do you consider that the process for selecting the S2R Associated Members is sufficiently open,
non-discriminatory and competitive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.4. Do you consider that the current way of defining topics for the calls of proposals is open and
inclusive?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.4.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum

C.5. Do you consider that the budget split between members' activities (max. 70% of EU funding to the
S2R JU) and non-members activities (min. 30% of EU funding to the S2R JU) is appropriate to ensure
a wide participation of the sector at large?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

101

C.6. Do you consider that the S2R JU organises a sound and fair proposal evaluation system based on
both scientific and technological excellence and industrial relevance?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

C.6.1. Do you consider that the communication of the evaluation results and the feedback provided to
the applicants is effective and meaningful?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
C.7. Please use this space to write your comments on the evaluation of proposals and the
communication of the evaluation results
600 character(s) maximum
Regarding C3: a stronger involvement of users (RUs, JMs) should be encouraged. This should be taken
into account in the evaluation process.

D. Relevance – Coherence - Effectiveness

* D.1. The scientific priorities addressed by the S2R JU are set in the S2R Master Plan and the S2R
Multi-Annual Action Plan in order to answer to the challenges identified and contribute to meeting the
S2R high level objectives. On an annual basis, these priorities are translated into more detailed and
concrete calls for proposals (in the relevant Annual Work Plan). Is this framework optimal for defining
the research & innovation activities undertaken by the S2R JU?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
D.2. Do you consider other research and innovation areas not mentioned in the S2R Master Plan and
the S2R Multi-Annual Action Plan as important to be addressed?
YES
NO

102

D.2.1.Please use this space to write your ideas about other important fields not currently addressed
600 character(s) maximum

D.3. Do you consider that the management of all EU funded rail-related research and innovation topics
as part of the S2R JU is beneficial to increase the coherence of the activities and ensure higher
delivery of results?
YES
NO
D.3.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Better cooperation should be encouraged between JU members and partners in open calls.

D.4. If necessary, how could the rail R&I framework be optimised to improve its effectiveness?
600 character(s) maximum
In general, simplification of the programme and its procedures. It takes two years from the setup of the
JU to actually start the first projects.

D.5. As the S2R JU is new, its activities are still in the early phase of development (first projects started
in September 2016). Projecting on the level of ambitions and the possible progress of the JU, how
effective could it be, in your view in terms of:
a: Not at all effective b: Somewhat effective c: Very effective

a

d: No opinion

b

c

d

D.5.1. Supporting the
development and
implementation of precompetitive research and of
innovation activities of strategic
importance to the Union in the
rail sector

103

D.5.2. Increasing the success
rate of demonstration projects
through the direct cooperation
of all actors of the supply chain
(industry and operators) and
facilitating the market uptake of
technical solution.
D.5.3. Improving the
attractiveness of rail services
through innovative solutions
and adapt them to the
constantly and rapidly evolving
quality expectations of users
(reliability and customer
experience).
D.5.4. Enhancing the capacity
of the EU railway market, in
particular through improved
capacity management.
D.5.5. Reducing the capital and
investment costs of new rolling
stock, infrastructure or technical
solutions (including renewal and
/or upgrade of existing assets)
D.5.6. Reducing the operational
costs of rail solutions (including
long-term maintenance and
energy consumption)
D.5.7. Reducing the
environmental impacts of rail
transport (externalities such as
noise, vibrations, emissions and
other environmental impacts)
D.5.8. Enhancing
interoperability of the rail sector
(removing technical obstacles,
closing open points, etc.)
D.5.9. Simplifying business
processes and reducing the
development and productions
costs of innovative technologies
for rail (in particular in
developing, certifying and
authorising new systems)

104

D.6. Should the JU undertake any other tasks in order to achieve the objectives set out in the
Regulation?
YES
NO
D.6.1. Please use this space to write your ideas about other tasks that the JU should undertake
600 character(s) maximum

D.7. Do you think that the S2R JU can contribute towards improving the competitiveness and industrial
leadership of Europe for rail products and services?
In the short term: over the next five years
In the medium term: over the next ten years
In the long term: over the next twenty years
No opinion
D.7.1. Please use this space to provide a reason for your answer
600 character(s) maximum
Related to the fact that the first project started in autumn 2016, immediate impact is not to be
expected/visible in the short run.

105

D.8. Which would you consider as major benefits of participating in a S2R JU project?
a: Strongly disagree b: Disagree c: Agree d: Strongly agree e: No opinion

a

b

c

d

e

*D.8.1. Direct financial
support for innovative
research and development

*D.8.2. Greater visibility
across Europe/Reputation

*D.8.3. Greater
understanding of the
product development
process

*D.8.4. Enhanced
cooperation with customers
(Railway Undertakings
/Infrastructure Managers),
access to new markets,
business opportunities and
funding sources

*D.8.5. Inclusion in open
innovation networks, and
cooperation with leading
universities and the main
industry players

D.9. Please use this space to write about other benefits not mentioned above
600 character(s) maximum

D.10. To what extent are the activities of the S2R coherent with other activities of the Horizon 2020
programme?
Not at all coherent
Somewhat coherent
Very coherent
No opinion

106

D.10.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
Rail was separated from other Horizon 2020 activities when setting up the S2R JU.

D.11. What is the relation of the S2R JU with other Union funding programmes and/or with similar
international, national or intergovernmental programmes
Complementarity
Synergies
Potential overlaps
No opinion
D.11.1. Please use this space to justify your opinion
600 character(s) maximum
The S2R JU addresses similar topics as national programmes. Both can strengthen each other, however,
S2R activities and reach are broader.

D.12. Do you have any experience in combining different sources of EU funds and/or with national funds
for research and over the innovation value chain?
YES
NO
D.12.1. Please use this space to share your experience in highlighting the advantages or explaining the
encountered problems
600 character(s) maximum

E. Efficiency
E.1. When you applied for funding from the S2R JU, did you think that the application procedure was
straightforward and simple?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

107

E.2. When you applied for funding from the S2R JU, was the administrative burden for preparing the
proposal within acceptable limits?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion

E.3. Can you make any suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the application procedure?
YES
NO
E.3.1. Please use this space to provide your suggestions for improvements or simplifications to the
application procedure
600 character(s) maximum

E.4. You consider that the S2R JU overall budget (public and private) in relation to its objectives and
expected outcomes is:
Too low and therefore it should be increased
Appropriate
Too high and therefore it should be partly used for other types of research and innovation
actions in this area
No opinion
E.5. Please use this space to provide your comments
600 character(s) maximum
Fear of members is that with the late start of activities, the total S2R budget cannot be spent. This would
negatively affect the realisation of objectives of the programme.

F. Overall
F.1. Please provide here any further comments
600 character(s) maximum
Early and strong involvement of users should be encouraged, sufficient attention should be paid to
demonstration and deployment of activities.

108

109